Re: [pyrnet] Now dwarfism - (sorry long)

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/23/00 4:48:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
lmweisser@olywa.net writes:


> .  I surely
> will from this point on, give absolutely no credibility to anything that
> you say or report that you have seen.  Frankly we simply need to depend to
> some degree upon the past history and "reputation" of people for knowledge
> and information.


You know the difference between what some unknown "friend" told you Vs. what 
someone reports directly. And of course one must always take the reporter 
source into consideration.  One must, though, be careful to identify the 
faulty logic tactic employed many times in debates, especially from one with 
a loosing position, of attacking the debater Vs the merits or issues of 
debate.  What I was told was from someone who knew extremely well and loved 
Carolyn, was also someone with an excellent reputation and I have known of 
them for several years.  This too is subject to subjective bias, but somewhat 
more (IMHO) reliable than some obtuse friend who is refuting what someone 
else who owned a dog reported directly and now even going into the reporters 
psyche about things that make them an unreliable reporter. 
We must all evaluate our information and sources, but with these obtuse 
quotes from out of no where and unknown identity, it is impossible.  Many of 
us can and do think for ourselves and do not need nor do we want to be spoon 
fed what someone else wants us to know.

But I agree that we will be better served with hard information from unbiased 
sources and sources with credibility, i.e., education and credentials plus 
experience.  Experience is dangerous without the education, thus the old saw, 
" A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  Education by itself is also 
dangerous.  So when we get into the area of genetics, statistics, and vet 
related areas we must give greatest difference to those who possess all the 
above credentials.  That's why I personally am going to insist on less 
subjective information and information reported by others without the 
background in education and/or experience (some in this debate possess 
neither), to those few sources available with all the credentials.  
Scientific information published in the mainstream publications of their 
professions is the ultimate source.  The investigators put it out there in 
its rawest form for their c!
olleges to view, study, challenge, embellish, 
etc., but it is there and it is not just bunch of subjective drivel. 

Joe